FIFA presents summaries of inspection reports on the 2018 and 2022 World Cup bid candidates

By
Steve Goff

With the selection of the 2018 and 2022 World Cup host nations just two weeks away, FIFA has provided general summaries of the inspection reports. Much more will go into the decisions by the 24-member executive committee (unreleased information, politics, etc.), but these evaluations give us some insight into the competition for the hosting rights. Here's a closer look at the USA and the other 2022 candidates:

AUSTRALIAVenues: 12 stadiums in 10 cities and projections of 3 million tickets sold. Nine stadiums exist and would need renovation, the other three would be built from scratch. Cost of construction and alterations is $2.29 billion.

Logistics: Australia has a well-developed transport infrastructure and considerable experience in managing the traffic and crowd flows generated by sports events. However, the country's vastness and geographic location imply a dependence on air travel, potentially causing domestic and international transfer challenges in view of the lack of alternative means of long-distance transport within the country. ... Australia has experience of hosting major international sports events in the last 20 years, including the Summer Olympics.

Government: If Australia is awarded the hosting rights, FIFA's legal risk appears to be low. All contractual document requirements have been met and the necessary government support has been secured.

Development: The bid's proposals would make a contribution toward establishing football as one of the top sports in Australia and Oceania.

JAPANVenues: 13 stadiums in 11 cities and projections of 3.2 million tickets sold. Twelve stadiums exist and would need renovation, the other would be newly built. Cost of construction and alterations is $700 million to $1.3 billion.

Logistics: Japan has an excellent transport infrastructure, comprising numerous international and national airports and extensive road and rail networks. However, traffic-reduction measures are essential to increase capacity and facilitate event transport operations during peak times. ... Japan co-hosted the 2002 World Cup and 2001 Confederations Cup, and hosted several FIFA Club World Cups.

Government: If Japan is awarded the hosting rights, FIFA's legal risk appears to be medium. While the necessary government support has not been secured, the Japanese government has experience in supporting the hosting and staging of a major sports event and has proven its willingness to make material concessions, accommodate the concerns of event organizers, and has expressed its intention to enact the necessary guarantees and legislation.

Development: The bid seeks to build on existing activities in Japan and Asia, and plans to leverage and commercialize several elements of its hosting concept, e.g. global fan fests and internet business, to generate revenue for further development activities.

SOUTH KOREAVenues: 14 stadiums in 12 cities with a projected 3 million tickets sold. Thirteen stadiums exist and would need renovation, the other would be newly built. Cost of construction and alterations is $877 million.

Logistics: Korea has plans to enhance its well-developed transport infrastructure. The proposed traffic-reduction measures are essential to increase capacity and facilitate event transport operations during peak times. ... The country co-hosted the 2002 World Cup, 2001 Confederations Cup and 2007 U-17 World Cup. It will also host the 2014 Asian Games.

Government: If Korea is awarded the hosting rights, FIFA's legal risk appears to be low. All requirements for contractual documents have been met and the necessary government support has been secured.

Development: Korea plans to concentrate mainly on national development and specific activities in Asia.

QATARVenues: Twelve stadiums in seven cities and projections of 2.8 million tickets sold. Three stadiums exist and would need renovation, the other nine would be newly built. Cost of construction and alterations is $3 billion.

Logistics: The bid envisions a concentration of almost all key event facilities and venues in a relatively compact area within a radius of 60 kilometers. The fact that 10 of the 12 stadiums are located within a 25-30 kilometer radius could represent an operational and logistical challenge. Any delay in the completion of the transport projects could impact tournament operations. Moreover, it appears to be difficult to test a transport concept prior to the event under conditions comparable to the World Cup. ... The fact that the competition is planned in June/July, the two hottest months of the year in this region, has to be considered as a potential health risk for players, officials and spectators, and requires precautions to be taken. ... Qatar has hosted the 1995 U-20 World Cup as well as the 2006 Asian Games. In January 2011, the country will host the Asian Cup.

Government: If Qatar is awarded the hosting rights, FIFA's legal risk appears to be low. All requirements for contractual documents have been met, but additional specific undertakings and securities are necessary given the special situation in, and the special hosting concept of, Qatar. The necessary government support has been secured.

Development: Modular sections from the stadiums are planned to be used to construct 22 stadiums around the world in developing countries. The opportunity for FIFA to bring the World Cup to the Middle East for the first time is also highlighted.

UNITED STATESVenues: Eighteen cities are under consideration for 12-18 stadiums, and organizers project 4.9 million tickets sold. All 18 stadiums are built with no further renovation indicated. Nevertheless, since most stadiums are American football venues, the bidder plans to remove seats in the corners and adapt the existing structure to meet the World Cup pitch size requirements.

Logistics: The proposed cities have a well-developed transport infrastructure and experience in managing traffic and crowd flows for events and sports contests. However, the country's vastness and geographic location imply a dependence on air travel in view of the lack of alternative means of long-distance transport within the country. Nevertheless, the capacity of the airports and the competitiveness of the aviation market in the USA would assure reliable air transfer. Temporary transport would have to be arranged to and from the majority of the proposed stadiums during the event. ... The USA held the 1996 Summer Olympic Games, the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, the 1994 World Cup and the Women's World Cups in 1999 and 2003.

Government: If the USA is awarded the hosting rights, FIFA's legal risk appears to be medium. While the necessary government support has not been documented, the U.S. government has considerable experience in supporting the hosting and staging of major sports events and has proven its willingness to make material concessions, accommodate the concerns of event organizers, and has expressed its intention to enact the necessary legislation by June 2013.

Development: The USA bid's hosting concept and legacy program highlights the importance of the World Cup as a key step in the further development of the USA as a football nation.

So, let's say each ticket goes for an average of $75 (I have no clue how fair a representation this is), and that we fall just short of that at 4.7 million... That's $352.5 million. Just in ticket sales. If the others meet their expections of 3 million, at the same price, FIFA picks up an extra $128.5 million. That's probably not as much as Qatar is throwing at them in bribes, but it's a lot extra.

I disagree that America would have to rely largely on air travel. I think we can successfully group certain stages around groups of cities and still have all the venues we'd need. Bus transport would be adequate for a large portion of the traveling.

We have dozens of capable stadiums (stadia?) in America and long-distance travel would only be necessary after the group stage when time between games is longer anyway.

While that's impressive, there is one glaringly ominous declaration in these summaries. For all the other bids, FIFA has declared the legal risk appears/seems "low". For the USA bid, FIFA says the legal risk is "medium". With our Mickey Mouse/banana republic government that won't invest any money in infrastructure and public transport, along with the massive cuts going on for state and local governments, it's hardly surprising that FIFA has some trepidation about our commitment.

"The U.S. govenrment has expressed its intention to enact the necessary legislation by June 2013."

By June 2013, President Palin may have withdrawn from all foreign treaty organs and declared war on the "U.N.-led world government." How's that gonna go over?

Qatar only has 80k hotel rooms in the entire country TOTAL. They will only have enough room for maybe 10k fans to travel to their country after all the press, players, and staff. What a freaking mess. I can't believe Qatar is a front runner for 2022, much less even being considered at all.

What?! Bill Clinton is the honorary Chairman of the bid committee, and he was a US President. Morgan Freeman is a spokesman, and he played a US President. Barack Obama's daughter plays for Kenya's U-13 national team.

Mickey Mouse banana republics are those that spend money they don't have, not those that refuse to. A banana republic would be one that authorized the incurrence of massive public debt to pay for luxuries for rich foreigners, adding to an already crushing debt load that will burden US citizens for decades -- with no demonstrable benefit. It's not that our governments "won't" invest money in soccer stadia, it's that they "can't" invest money they don't have. Google "Harrisburg bonds". Only the feds can print more money. And if you think the US populace will tolerate printing massive amounts of additional money to build soccer-specific stadia for a one-time soccer tournament that won't occur until 2022 (long after most of the current politicians expect Charlie Rangel will be off the stage), you haven't been paying attention. That's not a Sarah Palin thing, it's a responsible American thing.

How come nobody talks about Australia as a serious contender for 2022? They have good enough infrastructure, stadia etc and have a soccer league on par if not better than the US. Plus THEY HAVE NEVER HOSTED BEFORE, which in my opinion is a huge advantage. Any argument about size, distance between cities holds just as true for the USA. No political, economic risks by giving it to them, I feel like they are a much bigger threat to our bid than Qatar is.

Maybe they are not big into bribing and that is why they are not taken seriously???

Ticket sales aren't the only thing that FIFA will have to consider financially: there are marketing agreements and TV deals as well... If the Cup is in the US, whoever gets the rights is going to pay a bundle - that goes for English as well as Spanish. Plus, the marketing fees are going to be substantial. While Japan, Korea and Australia may offer lots of marketing opportunities, I don't think they'll match the US; TV deals - not even close.

Have you actually watched A-League soccer? The quality is not great, certainly not better than MLS.

Australia has the problem of being too far away from Europe (and just about everywhere else). The same problem that Japan and Korea have regarding time zones and match times.

And they will need to find a way to make peace with the AFL who were making noises about refusing to allow the "other code" to use their stadiums during what is the middle of the Aussie Rules season. Which will also mean playing surfaces that are not pristine.

Not that FIFA probably cares about any of that stuff. They just care about $$$

If you think the US populace will tolerate printing massive amounts of additional money to build soccer-specific stadia for a one-time soccer tournament that won't occur until 2022 (long after most of the current politicians expect Charlie Rangel will be off the stage), you haven't been paying attention. That's not a Sarah Palin thing, it's a responsible American thing.

The USA building soccer-specific stadia for the Cup? What lunatic suggested doing something like that? The whole point of the USA bid is that we've already got the stadia...and they're way bigger than anything anyone else has. All that has to be done is knock out the corner seats because of the oval shapes, and you have the finest "soccer-specific" stadia in the world for a tournament of this kind.

Who's not paying attention? I wrote about infrastructure and public transport. As FIFA notes, to make this work, there will have to be fleets of buses to get tourists out to some of these stadiums (I really prefer that plural).

I don't want US govt's shelling out money for lots of stadiums...and I'm concerned about public debt (though, there is no better time for borrowing to make desperately needed capital investments, since rates are at historic lows and so are construction costs).

It's interesting though -- about hypocrisy. Let's skip over soon-to-be Rep. Andy Harris' tantrum when he found out he'd have no federal health insurance for 45 days -- let's just focus on debt and spending. The Ricketts family spent millions in this election cycle promoting anti-tax groups and anti-earmarks campaigns. And, why not? The family 's wealth is estimated at $1 billion. They can afford to throw around money to influence elections and policy. Thing is, they own the Chicago Cubs, and they want the state and city to float $200 - $300 million in bonds to pay for a renovation of Wrigley Field. That's a stadium, right?

I have to wonder whether anyone on either the inspection committee or the executive committee is taking into account what ought to be a relevant consideration: namely, that the host nation is getting one of 32 coveted berths, and one of the candidates (Qatar) is way behind all the others in that department. Qatar is currently ranked 113th in the world, and has been on its way down in recent years. This would be far more of a stretch than having the USA, South Korea, Japan, or South Africa as a host nation:

"In July I released a report, "World Cup Economics: What Americans Need to Know About a U.S. World Cup Bid," which reviewed our knowledge on the economics of sports mega-events. The most relevant finding: organizers for the 1994 U.S. World Cup claimed that the U.S. would see a positive impact of $4 billion, yet post-Cup analysis by economists showed a startling return to reality: a $9 billion loss. Nearby Washington, D.C., a 1994 host city, was estimated to have lost up to $792 million in reduced income that year!

If World Cup bidding was a transparent, accountable process, such a wildly optimistic estimate and its effect on taxpayers would be considered malfeasance. But to paraphrase Yogi Berra, its déjà vu all over again. Today's U.S. Bid Committee, led by sports, entertainment and political luminaries, may be dragging Baltimore and the U.S. into another financial debacle at a time when we can least afford it.

The evidence does not just implicate the 1994 US World Cup. My review showed that there were serious issues with the economic expectations for mega-events such as the 2006 Germany World Cup, the 1992 Barcelona Olympics and, I suspect, the 2010 South Africa World Cup. The 1974 Montreal Olympics created a debt that took 30 years to pay off. Those are just a few of the mega-events that were over-sold but which severely under-performed on the economic side of the equation."

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.